Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 74 out of 100. Drug development

Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models

Plain-language summary

A total of 13,276 SGLT2I and 36,544 DPP4I users (total n = 51,460; median age: 66.3 years old [interquartile range (IQR): 58-76], 55.65% men) were studied (follow-up: 472 [120-792] days). After 1:2 matching (SGLT2I: n = 13,283; DPP4I: n = 26,545), SGLT2I users had lower incidences of dementia (0.19 vs. 0.78%, p < 0.0001), Alzheimer's (0.01 vs. 0.1%, p = 0.0047), Parkinson's disease (0.02 vs. 0.14%, p = 0.0006), all-cause (5.48 vs. 12.69%, p < 0.0001), cerebrovascular (0.88 vs. 3.88%, p < 0.0001), and cardiovascular mortality (0.49 vs. 3.75%, p < 0.0001). Cox regression showed that SGLT2I use was associated with lower risks of dementia (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.27-0.61], P < 0.0001), Parkinson's (HR:0.28, 95% CI: [0.09-0.91], P = 0.0349), all-cause (HR:0.84, 95% CI: [0.77-0.91], P < 0.0001), cardiovascular (HR:0.64, 95% CI: [0.49-0.85], P = 0.0017), and cerebrovascular (HR:0.36, 95% CI: [0.3-0.43], P < 0.0001) mortality. The use of SGLT2I is associated with lower risks of dementia, Parkinson's disease, and cerebrovascular mortality compared with DPP4I use after 1:2 ratio propensity score matching.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Mui, J. V., Zhou, J., Lee, S., Leung, K. S. K., Lee, T. T. L., Chou, O. H. I., et al. (2021). Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors vs. Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP4) Inhibitors for New-Onset Dementia: A Propensity Score-Matched Population-Based Study With Competing Risk Analysis. Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.747620

Vancouver

Mui JV, Zhou J, Lee S, Leung KSK, Lee TTL, Chou OHI, et al. Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors vs. Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP4) Inhibitors for New-Onset Dementia: A Propensity Score-Matched Population-Based Study With Competing Risk Analysis. Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine. 2021. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2021.747620. PMID: 34746262.

BibTeX

@article{mui2021-34746262,
  author  = {Mui, J. V. and Zhou, J. and Lee, S. and Leung, K. S. K. and Lee, T. T. L. and Chou, O. H. I. and Tsang, S. L. and Wai, A. K. C. and others},
  title   = {{Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors vs. Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP4) Inhibitors for New-Onset Dementia: A Propensity Score-Matched Population-Based Study With Competing Risk Analysis}},
  journal = {Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.3389/fcvm.2021.747620},
  pmid    = {34746262},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.747620}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 74/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 4 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 43 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 74 of 100. Total 74 of 100.43 of the 58 points we could judge = 74 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 4 / 4 51,460 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 34746262)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 43 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100.
Total 74 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Drug development from nearby years

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Drug development

See all studies in Drug development →